Posted
by
Roblimoon Tuesday February 05, 2008 @12:21PM
from the first-they-ignore-you dept.

On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people. Perhaps other Slashdot readers -- like you (hint hint) -- can pull a few strings with some of the other campaigns and get them to communicate with us. Use this email address, please. But first, you'll probably want to read the Ron Paul campaign's answers to your questions (below).

1) Global high tech

In the last year, India and China have both announced and made
progress
towards implementing their own space programs. How should America
respond to
such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a
threat or
an
opportunity?

Ron Paul campaign: America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the
world and worry more about its own national security interests,
including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I
will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.

2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and
a
number
of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear
and
concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think
waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the
war
in
Iraq if you are elected?"

So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that
office
(Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"

Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it
the
next
time someone asks you a question.

Ron Paul campaign: The American people should expect clear and direct answers to
their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my
position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to
the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the
campaign trail.

3) Marijuana

I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I
pay my
taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am
close
to
my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute
to
society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer
when I
come
home from work, my government has declared war on me.

My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why?
If
not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?

Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and
content?
More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights
of
the
average citizen to use digital content in "fair use"
ways
(backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for
corporations to
protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we
have
seen
an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension
bills. As
President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse
them?

Ron Paul campaign: I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however,
some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable
burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns.
As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of
copyright holders and consumers of digital media.

5) What do you think about patents?

People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation,
but
when
someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they
aren't
looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American
technological
innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on
ideas
and
punishes those who create new products.

It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new,
you
will
likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with
your
invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to
actually produce or sell anything.

As President, would you fix our broken patent system?

Ron Paul campaign: Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I
do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with
Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and
rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small
business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a
product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations
will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.

Playing cop and peacemaker and bully across different parts of the world is expensive and contrary to our national interests.If you reverse course on those policies, you allow of lower taxes by cutting the actual need for the money. That in turn allowsthe country to focus on 'true national interests' which includes private research of all sorts.

It is actually pretty consistent with the rest of his campaign literature...

His logic goes like this.

Why spend 1 trillion dollars and 100,000 soldiers protecting oil flow and royally pissing off huge numbers of people. If the "real" cost of oil is $200 a barrel and we are hiding that by using tax payer money to provide security then stop doing that. With the true price of oil unmasked, then other alternatives become economically viable.

Why put 35,000 troops and a hundred million dollars a year into other countries we have been at peace with since 1960 or earlier? We could have those troops ready to move fast to real problem areas and use the money to buy new planes and tanks instead of funding discos in germany, japan, and south korea where our young troops go to party on leave.

---In a recent election in texas we passed 14 of 15 tax increases. Because they were phrased as vital new services instead of as tax increases. Easily 30% of what the federal government does could be cut back and then you can immediately pay off the deficit and then lower taxes. And those lost services would be replaced at the state level in the states that felt they were good enough to pay for.

We have essentially created a "commons" of "free" money in the federal government. We are looting and pillaging it while ignoring the fact that the "free" money is really coming out of our own pockets.

We have essentially created a "commons" of "free" money in the federal government. We are looting and pillaging it while ignoring the fact that the "free" money is really coming out of our own pockets.

This is what enrages me about the Bush tax cut proposal. It is much the same as if your boss told you he was giving you a raise by letting you charge $1000 more on your own credit card. Are people really that stupid?

There are also people out there that assume there is a magic bullet government program that will fix everything.

Yes, those people call themselves "Republicans" and "Democrats" and they are the majority.

That is why libertarians exist; and also why they lose.

The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative. This in turn has led directly to the essential irrelevance of the constitution with regard to law, uncontrolled government expansion, loss of liberties, privacy and property, and a general feeling of helplessness when government abuse is directed, as it eventually is, at one's self.

I normally wouldn't answer a rant like yours, but I feel I must as it's been rated "insightful" for some frightful reason. Guess I'll be losing my Karma.

You are wrong. Most people do not want to have the gov't be their mommy. Most people either feel helpless to fix the system, are just greedy, or don't think at all. They know the government is broken, but don't feel that they can do anything about it. One man I know feels that the tax cuts are wrong, and that W. has betrayed his conservative ideals, but this man still wants his tax cut money. Why? Because he says that the system is so far gone, he may as well "get his". I think that if you ask around, most people will say they just "want theirs". Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian? Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.

Oh, but they do. Ask people if they think the feds should be raiding people's homes in California for using Marijuana. Ask them if they think the feds should be controlling who has access to guns. Ask them if they think the feds should be making laws about sexuality. Ask them if they think the feds should be concerning themselves with burning flags. Ask them if the feds should be making national databases of criminals. Ask them if the FBI and the DEA are legitimately constituted agencies. Go ahead, ask. If you just ask these questions and don't set them up as clear violations of constitutional authority, people will generally just nod. I've asked, I continue to ask; it is my way of agitating. Then I explain that there is no authority given to the feds for these things and that the state and local governments can be given that authority if the people so choose, that's the constitutional design, and this makes sense to them (of course — it was designed to make sense by people who were quite bright and very intent on trying to get it right.) When I do my asking, the answers are generally the same, most people, and by that I mean almost everyone I ask, think this is all ok, and furthermore, they are unable to tell me what the constitution says. Without that knowledge, it isn't hugely surprising that they don't understand the basis for the feds being out of hand, but nonetheless, that is the case.

Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian?

No. Greed is ultimately destructive. The urge to grow, develop and expand knowledge, technology, medical care and creature comforts, however, is highly positive. Greed is what drives the federal government today. They are the penultimate example of people involved in a power grab.

Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.

Problem is, the federal government isn't doing the job it was constituted to do, and it has used force to steal the power to work together within the states, from the states, thereby making the people unable to work together in favor of their own interests. You act like I'm an advocate of chaos or lack of control; I most assuredly am not. However, if the government does not obey the law, then what controls it? Nothing — and that is both the problem in an anticipatory sense, and in the contemporaneous sense. Today, we have a government making war on a people who did not attack us. It is making ex post facto laws. It has turned the commerce clause on its very head. It has usurped powers that belong to the states and the people. It has grievously violated every one of the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) with the single exception of amendment three. The president is acting as if he is literally above the law, when the constitution specifically says otherwise. It has suspended habeas corpus outside of a time of war. It has made treaties and then not honored them. It has taken money and property from its citizens without trial. In short, the federal government is completely out of control. Any impression that anyone has that it isn't out of control is the result of propaganda. And as for your remark, sir, the implication that we have to let the fed abuse us in order to work together is both disingenuous and without any basis in reality.

I don't really see how that's the case, both answers seemed pretty compatible... perhaps if you had given a reason or two we could discuss this further. Your lack of details notwithstanding, let me try to explain why they are not in conflict:
1: He basically stated that by discontinuing our subsidization of other countries through military aid, they will quickly find they have a lot less money to blow on costly, competitive space plans. Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course.
2: He said he believes we all deserve straightforward, concise answers to our questions.
I see no conflict... I assume you intended to say that his answer to question 1 was somehow not a straight answer, but I contend that if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer to question 1 while explicitly avoiding buzzwords and fluff.

I assumed differently, namely that he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2). But we'll have to hope the original poster comes back to answer, 'cause I'm only guessing, too.

His campaign web site isn't factual, it's a sales pitch. We don't push those here.

Let me see if I have this straight: Paul's website is a sales pitch, but the wishy-washy answers Roblimo got from the Paul campaign and posted as the article isn't? As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the two. Both are claims as to where Ron Paul stands on particular political issues. That is all they are: sales pitches.

You can call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, all news is propaganda. Hard facts are diamonds trapped in a matrix created by the manner in which a journalist c

There were two referenda in Ireland. One was about banning abortion. It passed, and abortion was made illegal. The other was about stopping pregnant women from travelling to England to have an abortion. That also failed and they were free to travel. Now arguably the two positions are not consistent. But I can see the logic behind them - personally I'm in favour of abortion, but I can imagine other situation where I would want to ban something but not close all the loopholes because that would violate some deeper, overriding principle of civil liberties. But the most important point is that the demos in a democracy doesn't have to be consistent. Now if you're a democratic politician you basically don't want to annoy the majority on any issue and that means you can't be consistent either.

Now some politicians are incredibly consistent, but I suspect that you really don't want them in power. In a sense all sufficiently complex ideology must also be incomplete I guess.

I'm pretty sure it HAS happened, though: I've heard of a case of someone in one european country, where abortions were legal but not after the first trimester, travelled to a different european country, got an abortion, returned, and was charged with murder. Recent, too - heard about it here on/.. Found something about it here [truthout.org].

Consistency is a serious problem with politicians. I've tried tenderizers, week-long marinades, cutting the meat into parchment-thin slices... Probably the only thing that's come close to working is shaving the meat as thin as possible and then putting it in a balsamic vinegar marinade for a couple days. Then it's gamy, not boot leather.

To translate it into plain English, he thinks we should have nothing to do with a government-sponsored space-race.

He actually didn't even say that.

What he said was this: First, we need to get rid of our insane military budget. Then we can have wonderfully interesting debate on whether we should have a 25% tax cut or double NASA's budget and have a 24% tax cut.

I'm glad you feel that way. And just imagine a life were everyone could live that way.

I mean, wouldn't it be liberating to wake up and get an electric bill for 50c/KW hour because of complete de-regulation of the electricity generation market? And how free I would feel when all those crappy last mile ISP's are bought out by the back bone owners and all of my traffic gets tiered, filtered, and over charged.

And just think about how cool it would be if the government got it's fat nose out of the way so that we could have 1 supreme software development company that could use it's control of the desktop market to crush any of those pesky competitors.

Yeah, the combination of libertarian reduction of government ideals with the open market theory and the republican 'business first!' attitude... that would truly be an inspiring country.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the reduction of government in some arenas, but the idea of having a fire sale of all of the federal government's powers is not the way to do it. All that will result in is shifting power from the government to a small number of corporations. And corporations as we all know, can not be held accountable, have no morals, and have a responsibility only to the stock holders' investments.

I mean, wouldn't it be liberating to wake up and get an electric bill for 50c/KW hour because of complete de-regulation of the electricity generation market?

Such a huge premium wouldn't attract new companies wishing to profit? More companies in the same market doesn't cause competition to increase? Increased competition doesn't cause prices to fall? Repeat the cycle some times and you'll reach the correct offer vs. demand price for electricity.

I mean, wouldn't it be liberating to wake up and get an electric bill for 50c/KW hour because of complete de-regulation of the electricity generation market?

Such a huge premium wouldn't attract new companies wishing to profit? More companies in the same market doesn't cause competition to increase? Increased competition doesn't cause prices to fall? Repeat the cycle some times and you'll reach the correct offer vs. demand price for electricity.

Are you daft? If the government pulls out of regulating the electricity market, the power lines have to belong to someone and you can be damn sure that without regulation no power company is going to allow competition. The same with ISPs and roadways. I guess you'd propose that these new companies spend billions of dollars digging new power lines laying new data lines and roadways, just so that they can compete, it wouldn't happen and people would be horribly exploited. Not to mention having two of e

Woh, wouldn't that be a crazy idea, if a bunch of States, United, and formed some kind of group, or Republic, to help them combat interstate and international issues that could not be resolved at the local level?

You are a free person who is a citizen of a Republic. Here in America, we elect people to make plans for us, because we are free, and we choose to do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but the majority of citizens do, so it is unfair of you to force your 'no government is good government' view on the rest of us.

Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.

This statement basically says he wants to keep the role of the government to national defense purposes, to which our space program has contributed greatly. He clearly sees private innovation as helpful in much the same way that we see open source development as a good thing (just wait until the private community stops communicating openly with each other).

2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.

This answer has no conflict with #1. Some may think the quote of limits on government conflict with #1, but libertarians believe that the limits on government are not in the area of national defense, rather in the arena of internal policies that override the sovereignty of states. He believes in free-market (more than I do) and he supports limits on government. So he's basically saying that his voting record and his words match up.

This is pretty damn straightforward and does not conflict with the previous statements.

4) What do you think about technology?

Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.

He obfuscates his answer a small amount here, but not much. The question itself was badly flawed in that it required a a somewhat convoluted answer in order to get at both topics (which, in my opinion, should be answered in a dissertation for any worthwhile content) For a short answer, this is pretty good.

5) What do you think about patents?

Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.

I think this is the best answer of all: he admits that he doesn't have a reform plan. He then blows a bit of sunshine our way in a nice little marketing ploy, yet managing to keep it honest.

So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?

The answers were prepared by Ron Paul's legislative director, who is the person in most Congressional offices (don't forget - Ron Paul is a sitting Congressman, not just a presidential candidate) who is empowered to speak on behalf of the representative. It's also possible, although we have not been told this, that Rep. Paul himself came up with the answers.

Many years ago, on a certain presidential campaign (which one is not important; he didn't win), if you got a "personal" answer to your letter addressed to the candidate, chances are that I wrote it and "signed" his name with a machine that scrawled "his" signature with a felt-tip pen.

You really can't expect a presidential candidate to personally answer all requests or even all media requests. That task alone takes at least 100 hours per day, which means you need to have a number of people doing it.

Reality = when you vote for almost any office higher than local school board member, you're voting for a team instead of for an individual.

I have learned, over the years, to carefully watch the actions of that team, and its organization or lack thereof, as a useful indicator of how competent that candidate will be in office if he or she is elected.

I may have stories to tell about our attempts to contact various campaigns as the general election gets closer.:)

Of course, the thing with Ron Paul is that given how consistent he has been over the years, pretty much anyone who has followed him can answer questions for him without fear of getting it wrong.

For what it's worth I work with the grassroots campaign here in TX and saw these answers before they were published, I'm pretty busy but will try to stay around this thread and help clarify things if needed.

Many years ago, on a certain presidential campaign (which one is not important; he didn't win), if you got a "personal" answer to your letter addressed to the candidate, chances are that I wrote it and "signed" his name with a machine that scrawled "his" signature with a felt-tip pen.

Well, looking at how low your ID is, I'm guessing it was William Jennings Bryan

There are exceptions, of course. Ronald Reagan always insisted on viewing a small portion of his mail and answering it himself.

Anyone who wants to learn how a President should think should read the Reagan Diaries. It's really a fascinating glimpse into a President's mind. Reagan seemed to enjoy calling people whose stories had touched him in someway and sometimes he noted, "they didn't believe it was me calling at first."

Bloom County fans will enjoy reading about Reagan's call to Berkley Breathed. I paraphrase it below, but the profanity is actually Reagan's:

"Called Bereley Breathed, author of the comic strip Bloom County. He sounded apprehensive at first - I'm very sure he thought I was calling to bitch at him - but I just wanted to thank him for drawing a lovely picture of Nancy in his latest strip. He was nice and told me he would send me the original."

Love him or hate him, reading the Reagan diaries will reveal that this was a man who was very, very much concerned with the "big picture" yet made quite an effort to stay in contact with the "average guy in the street". It is clear that he felt talking with normal, everyday Americans kept him grounded.

So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?

Well, just like Ron Paul's newsletters [cnn.com], these will be his own writing when he agrees with it, then someone else's writing when it gets attention, and finally ghostwritten with no prior knowledge of his when the sh*t hits the fan...

But of course, we are all supposed to believe that he is not just another politician, and he is somehow fantastic and different.

Ron Paul wasn't even in congress when those newsletters were written. He had gone back to his practice in Texas. Those letters WERE written by a ghostwriter, and have been widely discredited. When Ron Paul finally saw what was going on, he fired the people responsible. He has admitted that it was his fault the letters were published without appropriate oversight.

I'm also pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't be endorsed by the NAACP if they thought those letters contained even a hint of truth.

If you're looking for modern bigotry, try McCain. He had some lovely things to say about people from the Middle East, including some things he said at the South Carolina debate.

Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:

Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?Is healthcare a right?Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).etc.

Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.

In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?

Citation please? I saw that debate, and never heard Ron Paul say anything remotely close to that, implicit or explicit. Ron Paul said that the lame-brain jingoistic excuse often given for the attacks "they attacked us because we're free & prosperous" was not the reason we were attacked. We were attacked due to our interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Switzerland is free and propserous and Al Qaida didn't attack them.

Blah blah blah. The thing is, the leaders of Al Qaeda have expounded *at great length* about exactly why they're fighting Americans. There's no need to make up a bunch of fantasy shit. All you have to do is listen for 3 minutes and not go around trying to throw sand in everyone's faces. There is no question about it -- every statement, the founding of Al Qaeda, every attack begins and ends with U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia."[T]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military

Here's the problem with almost all you pro-war people. You think that anybody who is opposed to the war is blaming America. I can't speak for everybody, but I can tell you I'm not. But the truth is that whenever there's a crime committed, even a terrorist act, you have to ask yourself "What was the motive?" Ron Paul explained that one of the motivating factors for Al Qaida to attack the U.S. was U.S. intervention in the region for decades and the presence of U.S. Military Bases in Saudi Arabia. He didn't pull it out of his hat, he got it from the 9-11 Commission Report.

No, I don't think the attacks on 9/11 were justifiable. No, I don't believe the attacks on Spain & England were justifiable. No, I don't believe the murder of Theo van Gogh was justifiable. But I do know that fundamentalist zealots were able to use our previous actions to motivate some of their people to attack us. That is something that needs to be understood. Trying to explain it away with false excuses isn't going to do anything to improve the situation.

I will give these a try. This is not an official campaign response, but it's also not just a fanboy response; I *have* been sent to represent the campaign before, and am on a first-name basis with the family and campaign. I will also try to get an official response to this but it's kind of Super Tuesday today so most people are working in the field.

Most of these can also be answered via google, anyway.

Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?

Paul is the strongest anti-illegal immigration candidate still running, primarily because of the harm done to our economy when people take entitlements they did not contribute to. He is absolutely opposed to illegal immigration and has published a 6-point plan to secure the border, including no amnesty, amendinging the Constitution to make clear children born to illegals here are not citizens, physically securing the border, etc.

That said, he does not oppose legal immigration and primarily sees the problem as economic. He has stated that immigrants are made scapegoats of our current economic problems. We can't afford to keep doing what we're doing with entitlements, so we have to fix that first, but once the economy is fixed he has stated the problem would always be too little immigration.

In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?

We were obviously attacked and I've never heard him say anything remotely otherwise. He has consistently proposed for and voted for legislation to go after the actual perpetrators (al Qaeda) as opposed to random Arabian countries that have oil we'd like to have. He has criticized our interventionist, imperial foreign policy as a strong contributing factor for why people attack us, but regardless of their reasons they need to be brought to justice. Random civilians do not need to be bombed for this to happen.

Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?

I've never heard him speak to this directly but I would certainly say no. He is the one person running who knows we need to eventually get rid of the entitlements BUT do it in a way that keeps existing people dependent on them from being thrown in the street, and revoking their basic rights is not consistent with his approach. We need to cut our imperial spending and take care of things at home, while promoting better policies for the future (as in letting kids opt-out of social security, while still paying back those that paid in already).

What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?

None, though private property owners set the policy on their own property.

Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?

What softball? Ron Paul of course believes the Federal government has run roughshod over the Constitution. He never votes for unconstitutional legislation and as President would veto it. He has stated that he would veto any budget that contained unconstitutional spending. The one place for "wiggle room" here is going to be his above approach to not throw people used to entitlements out onto the str

Answers from ronpaul2008.com issues page mostly. Unlike a lot of politicians, Ron makes some *very* clear statements about his intent... and with his history and voting record you can trust him to do what he says. I disagree with easily 40% of his positions- but I trust him to do what he says. ALL the other politicians left in the race, I trust to say whatever they need to say to be elected and then go right back to running the company for major corporations as soon as they are elected...

Question 1> Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?Answer 1>

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Question 2> In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?Answer 2> I could find no clear answer to your question...There were answers around your question here:http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism [ronpaul2008.com]

Question 3>Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?Answer 3> While I could find no clear answers to your question, I think most people who follow Ron Paul would find your question completely bizarre. Of course he is for every united states citizen's right to vote. He's never beaten his wife, and he's never called for welfare recipients to lose the right to vote.His positions on this area (voting record) appears to be here: http://www.thelangreport.com/?p=324 [thelangreport.com]

Question 4>What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?Answer 4>http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/ [ronpaul2008.com] I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unc

To be fair, those questions outright SUCKED. *That's* the best Slashdot can give our candidates? No wonder no one responded! I was expecting questions that would give a layman's summary of all the great issues whose explanation we take for granted, including patents, copyright, distribution monopoly, fair use, parenting in the digital age, internet governance, etc., and then ask for a well-reasoned or thought-out action plan. But these questions do nothing to motivate a person to think deeply about anything I care about.

Fuck, you have an opportunity to get official answers to questions that would *never* be asked in a mainstream debate, and instead you shove forward crap about Marijuana and "our elected officials deceive us"? We all deserve the shitty response we got.

Not trolling at all here, but I was rather underwhelmed by the responses.

Basically, the responses given by the Ron Paul campaign carried the tone I expected (more focus on personal liberties and free market) but were truly lacking in depth. For once, it would be nice to get a more detailed response from a politician, and not just the typical buzzword jockeying.

Of all the candidates, this was the one I least expected generalizations and "typical response" muck. Oh well... at least they responded... I guess...

I was actually quite impressed with his response on patents. Admitting that you don't have a specific policy on an issue that the electorate (or, at least, the subset you are talking to) care about is something you very rarely see politicians do.

...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.

Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.

Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.

On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.

Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.

Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.

I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.

Why don't you vote? Are you a felon? Or is it the whole 'voting doesn't matter' diatribe.

When you get bad service at a restaurant, not leaving leaving a tip only makes the server think you're an ass. Leaving a $.25 tip will still make them think you're an ass, but betters the odds of sorting themselves out (either via a manager, or themselves, etc).

Personally, this is the first election I'll have ever voted in where I felt like 1) my vote mattered (both to me and to the outcome), and 2) I'm excited for the potential of numerous candidates regardless of parties.

So I suppose it's my fault for not checking this thread and modding these questions down, but come on. "Why can't I get a straight answer?" and an inflammatory question on marijuana? This is why the elected hold the masses in contempt. Then two questions about patents and IP, where one begs the question of a broken patent system (not that I disagree, but it's a lousy way to ask a question). Are these the best presidential questions dealing with science and technology we can come up with? I'd like to hear something about energy policy, science education, NSF funding, international collaborations for basic research, and so on.

Except this time, make it clear how many subscribers are actively reading slashdot. Instead of some crackpot geek site they'll see it as a forum for a significant amount of voters.
Or maybe they just don't think geeks vote:)

It is highly unlikely then Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. This is unfortunate because he is an extremely smart man who is consistent in his policies. His voting history carries this out. Not only that, be he is the only candidate that seems to have a solid understanding of sound economic fiscal policy.

Even more unfortunate, we will soon be left with elections that are exactly as they have been in the past: A choice between the lesser of two evils.

The question was not "Do you oppose Federal Marijuana laws..." it was "What are you going to do to protect me from being arrested". It's an indirect answer at best. And just one paragraph above, he said we deserve direct answers.

Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote.
I know this story is slanted such that we are supposed to feel that only Ron Paul cares enough about us to actually respond, but the truth of the matter is that despite slashdot's large readership, a significant fraction of the readership is not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, whereas large U.S. newspapers can boast a much larger percentage of eligible U.S. voters. Also, politicians still pay more attention to print publications than to internet publications. Print media still holds more respect. One of my coworkers once told me he had e-mailed his resume to 100 companies and not gotten a single response. I told him that I would bet money that he had sent his resume by regular mail to the company that he would have gotten multiple responses. Of course, that would have cost him over $40 in stamps, plus more effort to address everything. This is the same reason you are more likely to get a response from a politician if you send them a letter than an e-mail. You have to put more effort into a letter, so they are going to pay more attention to it.

You serve politicians up questions like that, where their answers will either alienate the Slashdot population or the general electorate, and you expect answers? Come on. Those were cherry picked by Ron Paul fanboys. The pot smoking question especially.

Slashdot readers in general have no idea of how screwed the US is.... It's absurd to worry about...

Different people worry about different things, and some egomaniacs tell you you're stupid to have your set of worries instead of theirs, because theirs are "more important."

Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that'

In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?

Khan Paul campaign: Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?...It is very cold in space.

2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"

So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"

Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.

Khan Paul campaign:
Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.

3) Marijuana

I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.

My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?

Khan Paul campaign: I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on... hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... buried alive.

4) What do you think about technology?

Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?

Khan Paul campaign: You see, their young enter through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow follows madness.. and death.

5) What do you think about patents?

People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.

It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.

As President, would you fix our broken patent system?

Khan Paul campaign:No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

He's actually made pretty clear some of his positions on technology, I'll give him that.

In general, Obama is:

a) in favor of investing in educationb) against the NASA manned program to the moon and mars. I believe he was going to use that money to fund some third world development fund.c) is absolutely in favor of copyright protection in general, and is committed to the DMCA in particular.d) is in favor of environmental technology in general, ethanol in particular (thanks Iowa!)e) deploy next generation broadbandf) in favor of net neutrality

The 2001 variant sunset 5 years after going into effect and was reauthorized in 2006. Obama voted for the reauthorization. He spoke eloquently (as usual) about various concerns, included civil liberties, but he still voted for the final reauthorization.

So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"

Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.

Ron Paul campaign:The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.

What the fsck has giving a straight answer have to do with commitment to free market and limited government? Do they (Ron Paul campaign) have such a short attention span, or do they expect that their voters have? I felt like someone spat on me, when I read those answers.

I have seen this sort of BS in all of the answers. Either Ron Paul doesn't care enough to think about these answers himself and lets his minions do the job (but they did it SO poortly!), or his logic device is fried and severely compromised.

Sure, he should at least be (very lightly) commended for admitting he hasn't thought about it, rather than giving a bullshit answer.

But why hasn't he thought about it? All of RP's policy decisions come down to this decision: is the power mentioned in the Constitution? If so, then it merits resolution, else the 10th Amendment prohibits it. Well, IP is there, right in Article 1 Section 8. There are so few issues actually at stake, once you look at it in this manner, so I'm kind of disappointed that he doesn't have a position on this one.

More to the point, I find it hard to believe. Maybe we really did get a bullshit answer. That doesn't really line up with what we know about the guy, but nevertheless I'm getting a whiff of it.

Well, what "viable" really truly means is "able to be supported by enough real voters to make it into office". "Real voters", in contrast to the vast horde of just-like-you voters that exist only in your mind.You are free in a democracy to vote for whomever you like, but confining yourself to "viable" voters is indicative of the kind of maturity it takes to function in a democracy (by which I mean any system with a major democratic component, including the US Republic), which requires understanding that a l

The problem with that philosophy is that the candidate does not know that you don't agree with on most issues and only voted for them because they were "viable". In their perspective you fully support the platform they ran on. This can be seen from the 2004 election where the many voters felt they were voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", but Bush took winning the popular vote as a "mandate" for his policies.

In order for anything to actually change, you sometimes have to vote for candidate "A" who has no chance of winning the current election. When this occurs then the other candidates/parties will be forced to consider the positions of "A" and likely integrate some of "A"s positions into their platforms.

How about the "Ron Paul stands just about as much chance of being elected as you do" posts? It doesn't really matter if the person reading is 15, an atheist, Chinese, or a member of Al Qaeda; the statement is still accurate.

The best thing about Ron Paul this year is how he can be the ultimate form of humiliation. Pundits and pollsters were all over Rudy "9/11" Giuliani before the primaries started. Some of them were practically writing his victory speeches before the first vote had been cast. Then people started voting and he got less votes than even Ron Paul.

As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard". He's also protectionist as hell. He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security). It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.

Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid. Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression. It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.

He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.

States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.

Like most Libertarians, Ron Paul would much prefer getting rid of the socialized support systems we currently have, believing that people would be better off just saving on their own instead of having the government do it. In general, that is probably true, however if people were good at that we wouldn't have needed those systems in the first palace. Once he starts cutting the funds for those systems it is inevitable that more people will fall through the gaps. There is the promise that everybody currently on it will continue getting their support, but if the money is not there then there is no way to keep that promise.

For an extensive rundown of where Ron Paul stands on the issues, visit On The Issues [ontheissues.org]. This is actually a good place to visit for all of the candidates.

Man, I love it when people make original insults like 'drinking the kool-aid!' rather than debating the subject at hand. I usually know there is a lot of bunk coming afterwards.

Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.

Umm, no. The gold standard might have made it harder to handle the great depression (because the government couldn't inflate their way out of it), but it certainly didn't cause the great depression. Wikipedia lists several causes [wikipedia.org], but really the federal reserve, created in 1913, inflated the money supply, leading to looser lending standards. From Wikipedia:

Americans consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the later for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged.
Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. Banks which had financed a lot of this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and bank depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals.

The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash. [wikipedia.org]. Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy. Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve. It's not that hard to predict really. In the 1920's you had a housing boom with easy to obtain credit which lead people and businesses to spend beyond their means. We've had the same thing in the 1990's through today, with the small recession around 9/11 which Greenspan inflated his way out of, which just ended up causing a larger bubble.

It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold

Ron Paul doesn't want to go back to the gold standard [wikipedia.org], but he does want to create a new currency backed by gold, so you could hold your 'dollars' in whichever currency you prefer. So once again, you are misstating his position.

. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.

Yeah, and if he were elected, and he created a gold backed currency the price of gold would likely DROP. The only reason gold is priced so high since 9/11 is because of our irrational fiscal and foreign policies. Gold is a hedge vs inflation, so implementing a rational fiscal policy would actually hurt gold's value.

He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.

Once again, you are mindlessly smearing the man, based on something you probably read from one website. If someone votes against NAFTA and CAFTA but says 'we should trade with no restrictions with every nation on earth' they are not a protectionist.

States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues

Slightly OT, but what is with the fascination with gold? I mean, it has value in manufacturing of electronics, and makes an average metal for jewelry, but aside from that I find it to be entirely over-valued. I always want to smack the hell out of economists that take about using things with "intrinsic" value for currency, and then list gold and jewels as examples. Being pretty does not add "intrinsic" value. If you want something with intrinsic value, how about a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas. At least with the gas it has a fairly well defined energy output that can be used to perform work.

The thing they all overlook is that gold just like the dollar only has value because we all agree that is has value. Since the only value of currency is what we agree to give to it, it doesn't actually matter what you use for currency.

The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.

A couple Austrian economists were quoted as saying there would be a "crash", but one thing they could not predict was the keynesian economic policy would prevent recessions from spiraling into depressions ever again, which used to happen regularly and has not happened even once since. Which is why economists abandoned the Austrian school many, many decades ago.

Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.

Wow! In all my years on the Internet I've never seen anybody make such an ass of themselves. You have it EXACTLY BACKWARDS. The Great Depression was as bad as it was because the Federal Reserve inflated the currency in the 20's, and then deflated the currency in the 30's. Flexibility of a monetary system is good like flexibility of an I-beam is good.

Ron Paul votes against free trade laws because no law is necessary for free trade -- for free trade you need to *get rid* of protectionist laws. "Free tra

His view on both is that the federal government SHOULDN'T be involved, so no he wouldn't be legalizing drugs, or gay marriage. He simply wouldn't be making them illegal on the federal level either, so your state would be left to decide.

I agree with the ideology that less government is better, but in practical terms there are some challenges to what you said. Gay marriage is an easy one; if it's legal in, say, Vermont, and you are gay and married there, and then travel through another state where it is not, are you no longer married until you return to Vermont? Currently, all states recognize marriages performed in all other states. It would probably require federal intervention

I remember Ross Perot's proposal of simple reciprocity: any trading partner would get the very same terms for their exports to the USA that American exports got to their country. That went over like a lead balloon in DC.

I believe the parent comment was referring to the fact that a racist newsletter [wikipedia.org] was published under Ron Paul's name for almost twenty years (78-95) that were filled with hardcore racist views.

Had sporadic unpopular views on racially charged subjects, peppered over decades of publication. When putting all of these together at once, and ignoring the fact that they were written by many anonymous contributors, they can be used to make a tolerant, open minded person appear racist.

If anyone points out he didn't write those comments, you can claim that as a practicing doctor, his involvement in a political newsletter is representative of his involvement in the country as president.

Maintain a forum designed to explicitly get racist comments is no better.

So, since there are racist comments in every thread on slashdot, Rob Malda is racist?Or, since when he didn't want to be spending his time in politics, Ron Paul agreed to keep the newsletter in circulation under new management, he can't run a country?

You have such a tenuous grasp of logic as to be totally insubstantial, if you think that way.

Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not. Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.

He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).

His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.

He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.

Do you honestly think the vast majority of beer drinkers are doing it for the taste of beer? That's a hoot.

And to be extremely frank about it, what's wrong with altered states? Why is it as an adult that sitting in front of the tube for 4-6 hours watching guys throw around or beat around a ball while getting wasted on Coors is acceptable but smoking up and listening to some Tangerine Dream or Pink Floyd is considered bad?

I'd love a real answer to this question. And no, I'm not a pot smoker but I've spent more than enough time around alcohol to know that "social drinking" is largely a joke for the vast majority of drinkers. If you choose not to smoke dope that's great but please don't act like we don't already have an available intoxicant that isn't abused just as much. The only difference is that one can be taxed easily.

A Slashdot reader truly interested in the issues you mention can find many statements about them from every candidate. The point here was not to ask questions the candidates have answered (often many times, and often on their own websites), but to ask questions that have not been answered by the candidates in easily-found material published elsewhere.

Not only is this absolutely true, the worst part is Ron Paul supporters are very active on the Internet trying to shut up everyone pointing this out and twisting the truth. This so called democratic question-answer debate is just an example: it won't touch the subject to start with like we're morons, people who touched it are voted down as "trolls". Personally I think if you proclaim you don't believe in evolution than that's a troll right there of huge proportions. Still, after his admission I haven't got